I've always wanted to achieve more with my mixes (READ : I am very poor at mixing my
tracks), so decided to spend the money on Mike Senior's 'Mixing Secrets' book to add to
the collection. It's a great book so far and I am getting a clearer idea of what I need
to do with regards to my mixes, however, there's a couple of things that I thought I
already understood that I'm now confused about...

..first - panning and mono
compatibility. I had always read and believed that to mix in mono first is more worthy of
your time because you can deal with any nasties up front before using the stereo width
effectively. The book says :

Quote:Stereo panning needs sorting out, for a start, because its
otherwise impossible to judge the effectiveness of the mix in mono

But in a previous chapter discussing mono
signals it says :

Quote:Central sounds therefore feel just as solid as those at the stereo extremes, so it
becomes possible to judge exact level balances in your mix with pinpoint accuracy,
regardless of stereo positioning.

Mono listening also forces you to work harder
to achieve clarity for each of the sounds in your mix, because you cant make things more
audible just by shifting them to less cluttered areas

It then goes onto explain how we never hear a true stereo picture
anyway. So why must we look to pan to achieve a balance? Surely it's better to just have
everything straight up the middle and deal with thing such as the 3db increase in central
sound that was explained, phase irregularities etc?

For example, when recording
a mono point source such as an electric guitar wouldn't it be better to leave it up the
middle and get it sitting right alongside everything else (as per the quotes above) before
panning it later. You would be safe in the knowledge that sounds work in mono before
spreading them out to achieve more separation if required.

As an aside to this,
I am looking at a mix where I have been trying to balance in the way described and
encountering a drop in volume from wider panned instruments when listening in mono. I'm
undecided whether this is a drop in volume there or an increase in volume from central
sources?

The next question is much more simpler and concerns high pass
filtering. I understand that you need to clear junk frequencies out of the way, and I
also understand why with regards to multi-mic sources. However, I've always read things
like "you can high pass filter the snare up to 150hz" and other similar things. How does
this relate to :

Quote:Restrict your use of high-pass filtering here to just removing frequencies well below
the range of the lowest instrument

I understand that it then goes onto say that you should judge more filtering later
on so I may be jumping the gun, but still I'd like to know how this advice relates to
other general advice I've read and whether this is accurate or not.

I'm sure Mike will be along shortly to answer in person, but in the meantime I'll shsare
my own views on this.

Quote
tomdot:It then goes onto explain how we never hear a true stereo
picture anyway.

Stereo is an
illusion -- it is a clever way of fooling our ears (or the ears of most of us -- some
people really can't hear stereo! Their brains are too clever to be fooled! ) into
thinking that there are discrete sources of sound laid out before us between the
speakers.

Quote:So
why must we look to pan to achieve a balance?

Because the inherent action of the pan control results in small
changes of levelof the panmned signal to each channel -- and thus upsets the critical
balance slightly relatice to a pure mono balance. Consequently, a suitable compromise
must be found, which will involve minotr alterations of level relative to the original
mono mix.

Quote:For
example, when recording a mono point source such as an electric guitar wouldn't it be
better to leave it up the middle and get it sitting right alongside everything else (as
per the quotes above) before panning it later. You would be safe in the knowledge that
sounds work in mono before spreading them out to achieve more separation if required.

That is certainly my preferred
approach -- born from years of working for a mono-concious broadcaster! To me, the hardest
part of making a mix work is sorting out the overlapping spectrum issues, where sources
with similar spectral content overlay one another and thus confuse or mask each other.
Fundamental issues like this are easily ignored and overlooked if you work in stereo from
the outset -- and then become major pains in the behind to sort out after you've already
spent hours building your mix.

So, I always start in mono, and sort out the
arrangements, EQ and balances to make the thing work reasonably well in mono. After that,
I pan things to where I want them to be and fine-tune the balance as necessary, and then
check mono again to ensure it still works acceptably well.

It is noticably
harder to build a mix in mono (or it appears to be much easier to mix in stereo, if you
prefer), which is why few force themselves to work this way. The same issues arise when
working in surround -- the additional spatial imaging makes it even easier to create
fantastic sounding mixes in surround... but which don't work well at all in stereo or
mono!

Quote:As an
aside to this, I am looking at a mix where I have been trying to balance in the way
described and encountering a drop in volume from wider panned instruments when listening
in mono.

Yep, that's the
inherent compromise involved in stereo-mono compatibility. Central sound sources will
always appear to be 6dB louder than widely panned sources of the same source level. There
is no way around that. That's why you will need to readjust the balance slightly, and
decide on the best compromise mix that satisfies in stereo and is still aceptable in
mono.

Quote:I'm
undecided whether this is a drop in volume there or an increase in volume from central
sources?

Either. It depends
on what you consider to be your reference point, and how the panning laws are configured.
Some attenuate the edegs, some boost the centre... But the same 6dB variation between edge
and centre will always exist.

Quote:I understand that it then goes onto say that you should judge
more filtering later on so I may be jumping the gun, but still I'd like to know how this
advice relates to other general advice I've read and whether this is accurate or not.

Most source recordings contain a
degree of subsonic rubbish which is detrimental to the final mix, even if not directly
audible, so high-pass filtering of each source is generally a good thing. But clearly, you
don't want to remove important fundamental frequencies, and you don't want the inherent
phase-shift associated with high-order high-pass filters to have an audible affect on the
source, either.

Consequently, where you set the HPF turnover has to be judged
on an individual basis, removing only the irrelevant and unhelpful LF content, without
detracting from the source contribution. And that can really only be judged as the mix is
being constructed.

Sometimes it is beneficial to be quite heavy-handed with
the HPF. For example, heavily cutting the bottom end out of an acoustic rhythm guitar
might sound horribly savage when you audition the tarck on its own, but it might well make
it work far better in the mix, avoiding muddying up the lower midrange of the overall
mix.

So there are no hard and fast rules, and it has to be judged by ear.
However, as a rule of thumb, I normally high-pass filter everything at between 30Hz and
75Hz or so when recording and tracking simply because there is nothing but rumble and
rubbish down there anyway (the lower setting being used for bass, kick drum and other
sources with lowish fundamentals, and the higher setting for everything else). And then I
would typically introduce a second high-pass filter at a higher frequency as I start to
build the mix, to remove unwanted LF spill or unhelpful lower mid that is cluttering the
mix.

Is it safe to say that we
only look to use the pan pots as a 'nicety' rather than any fundamental sonic reason then?
I've certainly always thought that mono recordings make more sense simply because there's
nowhere you will ever hear the stereo image you've created other than in front of your own
monitors and over headphones.

It's also nice to see that I'm not experiencing
anything out of the ordinary, and I understand now that it's more of a "whatever works
best" type of thing rather than anything else.

As for the filtering question, I
already high pass filter a lot because I understand about subsonics and unwanted
frequency. My question was specifically relating to Mike's take on high pass filtering
ensemble recordings. He says to filter from the range of the lowest instrument. This is
fine in principle, however, why all the fuss with filtering each individual instrument
(ie, kick, snare etc)? Couldn't we just zero the faders, put an EQ over the stereo bus
and filter out there and then look at fader balance and pan etc?

I know that
phase etc plays a part when individually filtering multi-mic'ed instruments, and this is
why the advice was given, however, when you hear that you can filter a lot higher on
certain instruments (ie snares), I wonder why you hear of filtering so high when you could
disrupt the phase between instruments?

Quote tomdot:For example, when
recording a mono point source such as an electric guitar wouldn't it be better to leave it
up the middle and get it sitting right alongside everything else (as per the quotes above)
before panning it later. You would be safe in the knowledge that sounds work in mono
before spreading them out to achieve more separation if required.

As Hugh has already mentioned, unless you're
using an unusual panning law, any panning you do will change the balance in mono. This is
why I suggest setting the pan controls early on, so that you don't knock that balance out
later. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't monitor in mono, however, because I
agree with Hugh that mono monitoring tends to make you work harder and achieve a more
robust balance.

As Hugh said, though, you can leave the panning until later if
you want, as long as you make sure to reassess the balance once the panning's in place.
Remember that the step-by-step method presented in the book is only there to simplify and
structure the mixing process to begin with, for learning purposes. As you gain confidence
in the principles at work, you can (and should!) move to a more instinctive workflow
that's adapted to your own personal preferences. (There are more details about making this
transition later on in the book -- chapters 15 and 20.)

Quote tomdot:The next question
is much more simpler and concerns high pass filtering. I understand that you need to
clear junk frequencies out of the way, and I also understand why with regards to multi-mic
sources. However, I've always read things like "you can high pass filter the snare up to
150hz" and other similar things. How does this relate to :

tomdot Quote:Restrict your use
of high-pass filtering here to just removing frequencies well below the range of the
lowest instrument

I
understand that it then goes onto say that you should judge more filtering later on so I
may be jumping the gun, but still I'd like to know how this advice relates to other
general advice I've read

I'm
guessing that you might not have reached chapter 11 yet:

"One other point to
make is that you may wish to reassess the high-pass filter settings you initially decided
on while balancing, in the light of your increased knowledge of the mix. If you remember,
we set them fairly conservatively to start with in order to defer dealing with additional
phase problems. Now that we’re better equipped to handle those issues, you should feel
free to clear out unwanted low end more astringently should you so desire."

Again, I decided to separate the 'subsonics-removal' and 'low-end balancing' functions
of the high-pass filter in order to provide a step-by-step teaching method. However, it
would be a bit pedantic to work that way once you're confident with balancing and EQ
techniques.

Quote tomdot:As for the filtering question, I already high pass filter a lot because I
understand about subsonics and unwanted frequency. My question was specifically relating
to Mike's take on high pass filtering ensemble recordings. He says to filter from the
range of the lowest instrument. This is fine in principle, however, why all the fuss with
filtering each individual instrument (ie, kick, snare etc)? Couldn't we just zero the
faders, put an EQ over the stereo bus and filter out there and then look at fader balance
and pan etc?

I only suggest
filtering out below the range of the lowest instrument to start with. If you're
following the step-by-step process, then you should expect to adjust the high-pass filter
settings further while working through chapter 11.

Quote tomdot:I know that phase etc plays a part when
individually filtering multi-mic'ed instruments, and this is why the advice was given,
however, when you hear that you can filter a lot higher on certain instruments (ie
snares), I wonder why you hear of filtering so high when you could disrupt the phase
between instruments?

The
issue of phase and multi-miked ensemble recordings is a complicated one, which is why I
tried to separate basic balancing and phase issues from questions of EQ'ing for teaching
purposes. I didn't want to sweep those complications under the carpet, though, so I
tackled the phase implications of EQ'ing ensemble recordings head-on at the end of Section
11.3.

Thanks for coming and contributing to this Mike. Generally it's not often that you can
ask a question about a book and get the bloke wot wrote it and an ex-BBC engineer to sort
it all out for you! You know what best selling book could really do with this kind of
approach? The Bible! Imagine if all it took to figure out a passage was to jump onto the
forums at 'Smote Unto Smote' and ask "John, what did you mean when you said..."

I think this book is the best thing for people such as myself - I've been doing this for
years and have knowledge on most things regarding mixing, but no real grasp or reasoning.
It's meant that I twiddle and tweak and wonder why it's never sounded great ever, even
though it should because I did 'X, Y, and Z'. I'd then just settle for a bad mix until
next time when I convince myself I'd crack it.

I'm a fan of workflows and
linear approaches to learn from (so I was a really fun kid), and this book offers that
approach before ruffling it's hair up it seems, so I'm essentially trying to forget
everything I've learnt and start again - hence the confusion around quite simple
things.

Because the inherent action of the pan control results in small changes of levelof the
panmned signal to each channel -- and thus upsets the critical balance slightly relatice
to a pure mono balance. Consequently, a suitable compromise must be found, which will
involve minotr alterations of level relative to the original mono mix.

New phone, H?

Quote tomdot:

Is it safe
to say that we only look to use the pan pots as a 'nicety' rather than any fundamental
sonic reason then?

Only so
far as colour TV is a nicety. B&W gives you most of what you need to know but colour
is more better.

Quote shufflebeat:Only so far as
colour TV is a nicety. B&W gives you most of what you need to know but colour is more
better.

While I see what you
mean, compare someone in front of the TV with a visual impairment to the average person
listening to a piece of music. The visually impaired person doesn't get to see either
B&W or colour so they can't really care about anything other than the sound - now
they're obviously only getting half the information required to understand everything
going on.

Take the average person listening to music though. There is no
visual information with music, only aural. As we all know, the majority of people never,
ever hear the stereo image you created, even over headphones. They (ie nearly all of us)
are essentially "blind" to the image you carved out.

My question was along the
lines of "why must we bother with the way Mike said it?" Of course I know we have to
bother to cater to all, so really my question should have been "why did Mike decide to
advise us in the way he did?"

I must say I have never been put off by a piece
of music due to it's stereo spread. There are plenty of tracks released in mono only that
I still listened to repeatedly. I don't hate stereo or mono, just wondered why did Mike
advise stereo first then mono rather than the other way round - it's become clear that
both are valid.

Anyway, I think the complete answers are above, so thanks
everyone for the input!

Quote tomdot:You know what best
selling book could really do with this kind of approach? The Bible! Imagine if all it
took to figure out a passage was to jump onto the forums at 'Smote Unto Smote' and ask
"John, what did you mean when you said..."

Well, Doris Stokes is dead, but
maybe that Glenn Hoddle spiritualist woman can channel her in some way...this is getting
complex

Back on topic slightly, I feel a big thing that will help is the
mix referencing stuff - though a trawl round the forums shows that people are just picking
their favourite albums which is probably not the best way. I don't feel objective enough
to judge tracks - I've likely got all I need in my own collection but I don't think I can
tell what's good bass as opposed to bad bass for example or what are various good uses of
spatial effects. Is it really as simple as what I think sounds good? I think until I am
more confident at picking out sounds I'd like to work from guaranteed stonkers, but stuff
mentioned on things like Bob Katz website are not all that current - does this even matter
if the sounds are mixed well?

I'm not even sure that I should be comparing a
heavy rock track to say a pop track. I understand that different styles require different
treatments, but take bass instruments where you gave examples of Skunk Anansie, Sting and
Dr Dre - are you judging all bass parts on these tracks regardless of style but whether
the part needs to sit above or below the kick, or whether there are subs involved? I'm
sure you use more than those three, but you understand my question?

Basically,
I'm struggling to understand how to approach looking at reference tracks.

I think to work on your track referencing it would prob be sufficient for you to dip into
your own collection of commercial CDs as most will be at a sufficiently high standard to
help raise your mixing skills. The main thing would be to try and match the style as close
as possible so you can say judge your own mix's merits against something similar that will
help refine it properly. I've found starting out with a list of a few particular things
you're trying to compare such as tonality, ie. say my mixes tend to be quite bassy
sounding and muffled when compared to a lot of commercial mixes prob because my ears
naturaly prefer a less fizzy top end. So then i'll make an effort to try and brighten up
the top end while comparing it to the reference track.Also a good thing to face up
to early on is the fact that you're more than likely to be going round in circle with the
referencing process until you're blue in the face...........but it's definitely worth
it!!

Quote tomdot:I don't feel
objective enough to judge tracks - I've likely got all I need in my own collection but I
don't think I can tell what's good bass as opposed to bad bass for example or what are
various good uses of spatial effects. Is it really as simple as what I think sounds
good?

Yes. I'd like to make
it easier for you by saying, for example, that Aqua's 'Barbie Girl' has the best bass
sound in the universe ever, but it wouldn't help. (And I'd have to shoot myself.) The
point about selecting reference material is that if you take the time to do it properly
you'll realise for yourself that your nominations for Best Bass In The Cosmos are what
define your identity as a mix engineer, so it's right that you should choose entirely
subjectively -- albeit with rigorous cross-checking on different playback systems. If we
all chose the same reference tracks, then that'd be detrimental to the general progress of
modern music, I think.

Clearly, however, if you're mixing other people's
material, or wish to compete with the most recent flavour of the month in the charts, then
you have to reference your work against tracks chosen by the client or the record-buying
public as a whole. However, if you already have a clear idea of what you
think is a good bass sound, then the chances are that you're more likely to deliver a mix
that both the client and you are proud to be associated with.

Quote:I think until I am more
confident at picking out sounds I'd like to work from guaranteed stonkers, but stuff
mentioned on things like Bob Katz website are not all that current - does this even matter
if the sounds are mixed well?

The Bob Katz stuff is good as a hi-fi benchmark, but when I'm working in typical modern
chart styles I don't personally get much use out of it. So much of the way modern tracks
are mixed is related to how they'll be mastered.

Quote:I'm not even sure that I should be comparing a
heavy rock track to say a pop track. I understand that different styles require different
treatments, but take bass instruments where you gave examples of Skunk Anansie, Sting and
Dr Dre - are you judging all bass parts on these tracks regardless of style but whether
the part needs to sit above or below the kick, or whether there are subs involved? I'm
sure you use more than those three, but you understand my question?

Clearly I pay closest attention to those
tracks in my reference collection that are stylistically related, but my personal
reference tracks also provide a general backdrop that allows me to appreciated how my mix
fits in with everything else I've done in the past, and how it's likely to sound on many
different systems (because I've heard my reference tracks in so many different monitoring
environments), and in that respect they can be useful no matter what style I'm working
with. Usually when I mix the client provides some reference-track suggestions of their
own, though, so I'm often most strongly led by those. However, my personal reference
tracks still then give me a context within which to judge the characteristics and quality
of the client's reference tracks, and decide how closely I think I should try to emulate
them.

An example may help to clarify here. Let's say, for instance, that the
client's reference track has a certain amount of subbass. On the face of it, I could just
emulate that level in my mix, but if I've checked my own reference tracks, I might decide
that I can get away with more subbass than their reference track has within their
style.

The thing to realise is that the process of compiling your own personal
reference collection is itself an education in listening, and it leaves you with a fund of
experience about listening systems and stylistic variables that you can use for any mix,
whether it matches the style of your reference tracks or not. Clearly it would be obtuse
to select loads of reference tracks that don't relate to the styles you tend to work in,
though, so there's usually a certain amount of overlap stylistically in practice.

I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but if it's any consolation, I think you're asking
the right questions! Referencing
technique is one of those things that really sorts the sheep from the goats as far as
mixing is concerned.

Quote davegorst:I think to work
on your track referencing it would prob be sufficient for you to dip into your own
collection of commercial CDs as most will be at a sufficiently high standard to help raise
your mixing skills.

Actually,
it sometimes surprises me how variable the field is, so I don't think I'd quite recommend
dipping in at random. Perhaps choosing 10 tracks and then eliminating half of them would
be a more bullet-proof starter scheme.

Quote:Also a good thing to face up to early on is the fact that you're
more than likely to be going round in circle with the referencing process until you're
blue in the face

+1

I bounce down my mix for referencing purposes, and it's not uncommon for me to do a
half-dozen tweaked bounces (or more) before I feel I've referenced it enough to send to
the client.

You know what? I think that this is the key to better mixes over and above
absolutely everything else. In fact I think I'm quite overwhelmed by the task! I mean,
where to start? How to compare? Do I listen to every record I own, even the Beefheart
ones
all the way through? Do I run through all my records looking at each instrument in turn?
In fact, how best to drill down instruments? Do I compare all slappy kicks, then all the
deep thuddy ones, then create a list of 808 kicks?

Oh blimey - I think I'm in
too deep Fun times ahead, no doubt, but I feel this is going to take over my life for
a bit! Though, if I'm right then this will probably be the best thing I ever do!

Tomdot i think i'm at the same stage as you at the moment as also currently reading
through 'Mixing Secrets' - so had an idea that might be useful. i could send over some
multitracks for you to work on and vice versa and then maybe bounce a few questions of
each other afterwards? everyone has got there own strengths and weaknesses when it comes
to stuff like this so if there's a possibility improving skills this way i'm definitely up
for it.Let me know if you fancy giving it a go

This actually sounds like a good idea...however...at the minute I'm not able to dedicate a
block amount of time to have a shared mixing experience. I'm having to work very slowly
anyway, and then let the cat out, then let the other cat out, then let them back in and
feed them, then the vacuuming, then some shopping...you know how this goes.

I
was also expecting to get hold of some of my old bands multitracks which were a lot better
than my poor efforts, however a bit of a falling out means I no longer have access to
them...big shame...

Though, I will take you up on your offer
eventually because it will no doubt be helpful - it may not be in the swapping multitracks
way, but in some way we will have a mix battle that will rock the foundations of beginners
mix battling!

In the meantime, have you looked over at the free sets of
multitracks from Mike Senior's website? Lots of them (in fact I think its all?) have been
Mix Rescue candidates so you can compare directly to Mike's work at the end. Though, I'm
upset that two of my favourite Mix Rescue's aren't there - Generals & Majors and The
Guest Bedroom. They would be good for the styles I'd work in, but alas, they aren't.

Yeah no pressure, anytime you want to take me up on that is fine! I know how it is when
you're trying to steal time just to work on a mix, sometimes feels like you power on the
computer just to power it down again and wash the dishes lol!I've been dipping into
the Mix Rescue multitracks and they've been really handy.I don't mind sending you
over some of my own multitracks if you want to have a go with them in your own time,
anyway take it easy and if you fancy it just let me know!

Quote tomdot:Lots of them (in
fact I think its all?) have been Mix Rescue candidates

That was how it started out, but Mix Rescue tracks are actually
in the minority now: less than a quarter of the 150-odd productions available.

Quote:I'm upset that two of
my favourite Mix Rescue's aren't there - Generals & Majors and The Guest Bedroom.

Unfortunately The Guest Bedroom
decided that they'd rather not provide their multitracks for public consumption, which
they were within their rights to do. I agree it's a shame, though, because it's a great
track that I had a blast mixing!

I might still be able to dig up the Generals & Majors for you, though. I'll have to
dig pretty deep into my filing system -- it was a long time ago, that one! That said, it
might not be that useful as mixing practice, as I seem to recall it was a bit of a
heavy-duty salvage job on the mixing front. I'll post again here, though, if I find it.

Quote Mike Senior:That was how
it started out, but Mix Rescue tracks are actually in the minority now: less than a
quarter of the 150-odd productions available.

Generals & Majors...it might
not be that useful as mixing practice, as I seem to recall it was a bit of a heavy-duty
salvage job on the mixing front.

So where do your multitracks come from now? Is it bands you work with or do they
apply?

G&M - Yeah, you had to start with fader moves to get a decent kit
sound, and you also had to keep the kit in mono, and heavy limit the close mics, and
compensate for a bad choice of vocal mic where the singer was moving around

It's maybe not an ideal example of nicely recorded tracks, but...it seems as though the
type of recordings made there are going to be typical of the people you may meet and deal
with day to day ie they've bought good one mic and used it on everything regardless, along
with some 57's and other odd mics they had lying around and now they want you to mix it.
If I remember there was also a picture of one of the band working in front of a Digi002
and Mackie mixer - again, typical kit for those at the bottom of the ladder. There also
seemed to be a talent and technique deficit in some important areas too - vocal tachnique
and stamina and timing at the drums.

Like I say, it may not be a great mixing
experience per se, but much more of a typical one. It would be good to tackle after a few
"practice" runs using nicer recordings.

Quote Jeraldo:Going a little OT
here, but do you have more books planned, and if so would you like to say anything about
what might be in them and when they might be released?

Still trying to work that out myself! Most of
my research time is currently directed towards live-room activities at the moment, so
that's probably the most likely area, but alternatively I might do some kind of listening
course based around commercial releases.

Too many hair-brained ideas, not
enough hair...

Quote tomdot:I always felt the first couple of books ended on a bit of a cliff hanger - it
really needs the final one to complete the trilogy.

Sadly the title 'Return Of The King' won't do here -- they
already squeezed that in at the end of book two. Weren't they thinking of the long-term
franchise?!

There was a particularly nasty buzz on the bass
guitar....caused by some ground loop issue I think....and the acoustics of the room we
recorded in was particularly non-constructive to good room recordings.....and we did it
all in 4 hours....I suppose the idea would be to fix the issues and try to get a good
sound. The tracks also served to remind the user that time spent getting the right sound
at source saves a lot of heartache....but that also finances and mainly time constraints
play an important part in home recording....we all have to work and look after kids and
appease the wife etc etc......

Were the tracks I sent in useful??
Maybe.....but at least they were true to how I have to record...with the limitations of
gear, time and place!

As for mix referencing...I actually choose recordings for
their various elements as well as "whole song" references.....so I like the foo fighters
drums....but also bob marley...the skints have some great production....as does the higher
end dance/dub step of skrillix....all of whom I find very clear and direct....especially
positioning of guitars to create an overall wall of sound, sounds from the drums (very in
your face) and use of digital sounds and effects with organic sounds....that mixture is
hard to achieve IMHO.....

I'll listen to stuff you'd find on radio 2 as
well....country, easy listening (like Claire teal....but I know her) just to hear some
mellowed and more directed mixing....and listen to the clarity involved.

Then
there is listening for arrangement values....the cardiacs....depeche mode (they are very
precise and clean)....snow patrol....Michael Jackson....all worthwhile IMHO

The
common link I find in all the reference tracks I like is the clarity of each voiced
instrument...the placement in the stereo field, the placement in the frequency spectrum
and the depth created...more and more it seems done with delay rather than reverb.....I
also like to keep an ear out for what "the kids" are listening too right now...gangnam
style....especially on "other media" like YouTube...can be quite an eye (ear?)
opener!!!

Quote Wease:There was a
particularly nasty buzz on the bass guitar....caused by some ground loop issue I
think....and the acoustics of the room we recorded in was particularly non-constructive to
good room recordings.....and we did it all in 4 hours....

Unfortunately this sounds as if you got 4
hours of unusable recordings. Better to have spent 2 hours fixing the buzz, then at least
the remaining 2 wouldn't have been wasted.

I understand what your saying.....but we didn't notice the buzz till afterwards.....one of
the lessons learned on the recording (listen to what you've got!)

You can still
I believe download the tracks...under big stone culture.....the buzz was actually (rather
luckily) not in the useable frequency of the bass....a high pass filter got rid of the
noise......which is a technique covered in the book.

These recordings were done
a good while ago....I think I've got better....am certainly better prepared when
recording.....I found the best thing about mikes book is that not everything is perfect
and sometimes there are things that go wrong that one has to "fix". As long as the fixing
doesn't really impede the mixing process....then I can live with it.

Also...the
performance captured, for the time, was quite good (for us anyway) and isn't that the most
important thing???

It was an interesting project to be involved with....and
even my minor input was I believe useful....even if as a "how not to do it" piece!

I shall have to look at the tracks again as posted by mike....been a while since I
visited mikes resource!